SECOND SECTION
Application no. 59177/10
Mehmet YERLİ
against Turkey
lodged on 3 August 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mehmet Yerli, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Adana. He is represented before the Court by Mr Kemal Derin, a lawyer practising in Adana.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 5 July 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken to a police station in Adana where he was beaten up by a police officer. As a result of the beating, the applicant’s eardrum was damaged. The applicant was subsequently released from the police station.
On 7 July 2001 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the police officer and complained that he had been subjected to physical ill-treatment. He also alleged that he had been arrested without any explanation and that he had thus been arbitrarily deprived of his rights.
On 10 July 2001 Adana Public Prosecutor referred the applicant to the Adana Forensic Medicine Institution where the doctors observed a perforation of his left eardrum caused by physical trauma. According to the doctors, the applicant’s injury required a 15-day healing period.
On 10 July 2001 the applicant applied to the Adana branch of the Turkish Human Rights Foundation where doctors working for the Foundation made physical and psychological assessments of the applicant and issued a report on 22 October 2001, stating that there was perforation of his left eardrum and that he was suffering from acute post-traumatic stress disorder. The report concluded that the doctors’ findings were compatible with the applicant’s story of ill-treatment.
On 25 October 2001 the Adana Prosecutor decided not to prosecute the police officer because the Governor of Adana had denied his permission for a criminal prosecution. On 6 May 2002 the prosecutor’s decision was notified to the applicant’s lawyer and on the same day the lawyer filed an objection against the decision.
In response to the applicant’s objection, on 20 May 2002 the Tarsus Assize Court decided to quash the decision of the Adana Prosecutor and ordered the prosecutor to file criminal charges against the police officer. The Assize Court noted that the prosecutor had not conducted a proper investigation and had failed, in particular, to establish whether the applicant had been taken to the police station. The Assize Court also noted that the prosecutor had not questioned the eyewitnesses named by the applicant.
The police officer was subsequently indicted before the Adana 8th Criminal Court of First Instance.
On 17 September 2007 the Adana 8th Criminal Court of First Instance decided to acquit the police officer on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
On 18 September 2007 the applicant’s lawyer appealed the case to the Court of Cassation.
On 8 February 2010 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the first instance court, but noted that the limitation period had been reached in the meantime. The Court of Cassation thus ordered the discontinuance of the proceedings against the police officer.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment.
Relying on Article 5 of the Convention the applicant complains that he was detained at the police station without any explanation and that his right to liberty and security was thus violated.
The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention that no effective investigation was conducted into his complaints of ill-treatment and that the national courts’ failure to conduct the trial in a timely manner resulted in the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings because of the expiry of the statute of limitations.
Finally, the applicant alleges a breach of Articles 17 and 41 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS
1. Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In this connection, did the national authorities act with due diligence in expediting the criminal proceedings against the police officer (see Salmanoğlu and Polattaş v. Turkey, no. 15828/03, §§ 99 and 101, 17 March 2009)?
2. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of this provision?
The Government are requested to submit a copy of the investigation and the case file, including, in particular, the documents pertaining to the applicant’s arrest, detention and release from the police station.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy